Essays academic service


A paper on gun control in the united states

These rights are considered a privilege afforded to the people and should be exercised as indicated within the document. The history behind the induction of the second amendment began in the nineteenth century when in the summer of 1787, the Framers included US Presidents conspired with one another to write the articles of the United States Constitution during the constitutional convention.

Fifty-five men drafted this document which serves as the blueprint of the United States government today. The motivation to construct and devise such a plan was created in order to give American citizens the absolute rights to proper enjoyment over their own lives. One right in particular is the right to own and operate a firearm. Constitution Due to the terms agreed upon by our forefathers, we have the right to protect ourselves and our families by use of a firearm against threat which can endanger a life.

  1. Therefore, state legislatures did not have to enforce these checks and citizens could own firearms as a right.
  2. However, this law expired in 2004.
  3. The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control of America, modern gun rights ideology seems to be rooted in two main arguments.
  4. Previous to when this act was passed, consumers only had to sign a statement that they were over twenty-one years of age for a handgun.
  5. Despite the issues with gun control in the United States, other countries have successfully managed regulation of the industry.

Firearms are responsible for more than 31,000 deaths and an estimated 74,000 nonfatal injuries among US residents each year, most of which are violence related. Many believe that these occurrences could have been prevented if the United States government had revisited and imposed additional restrictions on the nations gun bearing population by way of recommending effective ways to combat gun use and introduce innovative approaches towards the severity of gun activity.

With that being said, it remains transparent that gun control is an issue which has had a vast negative effect on our society as a whole and as a result, an evaluation of the second amendment should be conducted and the meaning for the right of the people to keep and bear arms must be reassessed to benefit all. Legislation and the United States Supreme court system have been in debate for quite some time over the issue of gun control. There have been various loopholes and laws being challenged by groups which are both against and for the use of firearms.

Whether the second amendment has been taken out of context is a topic of discussion with has had little resolution. By far, the hope will always be to find common ground in this meeting of the minds so that as a nation, we no longer have to live through the battles of gun violence and hear about the effect it has on innocent bystanders.

So long as a gun control measure is not a total ban on the right to bear arms, the courts will consider it a mere regulation of the night.

  • Simply put, this ban restricts the ability to use certain types of firearms which are perceived to be a particular threat to public safety;
  • Gun rights supporters argue that this is not legitimate because the guns used in the ban are semi-automatics, which are less dangerous than automatic firearms;
  • The nature of gun-related crimes makes absolute prevention impossible, but that does not mean that policies that can decrease violence should be ignored;
  • By far, the hope will always be to find common ground in this meeting of the minds so that as a nation, we no longer have to live through the battles of gun violence and hear about the effect it has on innocent bystanders.

Before delving into these touchy subjects, there are six ethical points to touch upon with relation to gun control which is of importance since the debate is on each end of the issue.

It is fair to accept that there will always be opposing sides with respect to gun control and groups who will depict the pros and cons of the second amendment, therefore, it is important to know the difference between all parties involved. However, it is equally important that privileges are not being abused or mismanaged rather used for the greater good.

First and foremost, libertarianism and fundamental rights are two sets of individual groups who are all for the use of firearms. These groups believe in the second amendment and the ability to protect oneself as well as the rights of loved ones against imposed threat. With that being said, there is statistical evidence which supports the idea that firearms are in the best interest of the people and that a trend in possession of firearms is equal to less crime.

America owns more guns than any other nation, therefore it is not surprising that America has the highest death rate due to gun violence in the world Horsley, "Guns In America, By The Numbers.

This alarming fact supports the idea that stricter laws need to be enacted in the United States.

This ongoing conflict is deeply rooted in American history, and endless speculation has proved this conflict to be of interest for all U. However, the turmoil created by both views is unlikely to cease in the near future. The danger that comes with guns demonstrates that stricter gun laws need to be enacted in the United States. This paper will explore the alternative interpretations of the Second Amendment and its role in American history.

Next, the reality of homicide as it relates to gun control will be considered. Finally, the positive and negative effects of gun-control policies will be scrutinized.

The recent shootings at Newtown, CT and Orlando, FL have indicated the urgent need for stricter regulation that will make it more difficult for citizens to possess a firearm. It is important to realize that different time periods mean different political atmospheres. The idea of a a paper on gun control in the united states of sovereign states was new and potentially dangerous.

Though the fear of state militias was relevant in the eighteenth century, this fear is unnecessary today. The mention of a militia suggests a military force from a civil population. This clarifies that the Second Amendment is predicated on groups, not individuals.

This rebellion, however, would not have enjoyed constitutional protection. The Framers would have most likely viewed this as an armed mob, which as mentioned before, is decided to be very different than a well regulated militia, which would be under constitutional protection. This rebellion also demonstrated the danger guns and armed groups acting without governmental authority could pose. Therefore, the Framers decided it was necessary to differentiate between an armed mob and a militia.

Only second to tyranny, anarchy was the reality they feared most. The contemporary understanding has become radically different. Overall, every right is apt to reasonable regulation, including gun rights.

However, the opposing argument of gun rights has also used the Second Amendment as a reason for unregulated gun ownership. Gun rights proponents view gun control policies as an attack on the Second Amendment. Supreme Court decisions such as the case of Printz vs U. The Brady Bill was passed in 1993 and required local chief law enforcement officers to perform background checks.

Popular Blogs

These background checks were to be performed in prospective handgun purchasers, until the Attorney General establishes a federal system for this purpose. County Sheriff Printz challenged whether this bill was constitutional on behalf of the local chief law enforcement officers in Montana and Arizona. Using the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article 1 of the Constitution, Congress tried to enact this form of regulation. The District Court found this bill to be unconstitutional, therefore strengthening the gun rights argument.

The Court argued that state legislatures are not subject to federal direction, capitalizing on the fact that the Brady Bill could not require local chief law enforcement officers to perform these tasks.

Search Here

Therefore, state legislatures did not have to enforce these checks and citizens could own firearms as a right.

The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control of America, modern gun rights ideology seems to be rooted in two main arguments. The first is that gun ownership is a God-given right. Gun rights activists believe that owning a firearm is a right that each individual can exercise, according to his or her own conscience. This enforces the statement that people are the problems, not guns.

This can be traced back to slavery in American history. In the early stages of our country, judges in the South thought that every white man should have a gun because they were in constant fear of a slave insurrection. From horrifying mass shootings to suicide, guns only encourage homicidal behavior and violence.

  • However, both sides fail to realize that gun regulation is also equally American as gun ownership;
  • For instance, background checks are opposed by gun rights proponents because the black market would grow;
  • Though the fear of state militias was relevant in the eighteenth century, this fear is unnecessary today;
  • Though the fear of state militias was relevant in the eighteenth century, this fear is unnecessary today;
  • This act essentially defined those who were banned from possessing firearms.

Moreover, almost a third of gun deaths are the result of suicide. However, this has been refuted. On December 14th, 2012, hours before the shooting at Newtown, Connecticut, a deranged Chinese man walked into an elementary school and indiscriminately attacked everyone around him, hitting 22 children using a knife. The use of a knife is significant because if a gun would have been used, the children in the school could have been killed and not just injured.

Effective gun control laws in China prevented this man from obtaining a gun.

Gun Control In The United States

Undoubtedly, a gun would have inflicted much more damage. Ultimately, this event demonstrates that guns can make killings easier. Therefore is it unsurprising that in 2011, handguns killed 10,728 people in the U. The Gun Control Act meant stricter regulations; license requirements were expanded to include all dealers and a more detailed record keeping was expected of them. This act essentially defined those who were banned from possessing firearms.

  • Fifty-five men drafted this document which serves as the blueprint of the United States government today;
  • For instance, background checks are opposed by gun rights proponents because the black market would grow;
  • Next, the reality of homicide as it relates to gun control will be considered.

Handgun sales were restricted over state lines; the list of people who could not buy guns included those convicted of felonies with exceptionsthose found mentally ill, drug users, and more.

Rifles and shotgun sales through the mail were also forbidden. The lack of security of mail order sales prior to this act is surprising. Previous to when this act was passed, consumers only had to sign a statement that they were over twenty-one years of age for a handgun. This act clearly supports the gun control movement by adding necessary restrictions on the sale of handguns and rifles.

Fifty people were murdered and dozens more were left wounded. This traumatic event has been by far the deadliest in the past thirty-four years. As America grapples with this reality, we again ask ourselves what can be done to prevent these events. While the relationship between the number of guns and homicide is undeniable, gun rights supporters point out that correlation does not equal causation.

For example, the reason for fewer homicides in certain states could be linked to the number of guns present in that state. The number of guns present in that state could be linked to the amount of people advocating for gun rights, which could be linked to the number of gun owners in that state. Therefore, the gun rights advocates argue that the relationship between gun control and violent crime is not as simple as gun control supporters say it is. Ultimately, the NRA argues that guns cannot be blamed for the final decision.

It is important to note that the goal of the following policies is not to impose on certain rights, but to simply reduce gun violence. The three most critical gun control policies put forth are universal background checks, a ban on high-capacity magazines, and a ban on certain assault weapons. Background checks, like all other gun control policies, have always been controversial. A background check includes looking up criminal, commercial, and financial records of a person or organization.

Gun control advocates argue on behalf of safety. This demonstrates the importance of background checks; if a mentally unstable person possesses a gun, the likelihood of a mass shooting only grows.

This consensus has led to demands for tighter restrictions on the mentally ill for purchasing a firearm. Alcohol abuse is twice as strong of a predictor of violence as mental illness, whereas drug abuse increases likelihood of violence to three times as likely. These dramatic increases in chance indicate that background checks have the potential to prevent guns falling into the hands of those who should not be in possession of a lethal weapon.

That Past and Future of Guns. A high-capacity magazine is a storage and feeding device that holds more than a certain number of rounds of ammunition.

  1. This traumatic event has been by far the deadliest in the past thirty-four years. With that being said, it remains transparent that gun control is an issue which has had a vast negative effect on our society as a whole and as a result, an evaluation of the second amendment should be conducted and the meaning for the right of the people to keep and bear arms must be reassessed to benefit all.
  2. The lack of security of mail order sales prior to this act is surprising. With that being said, there is statistical evidence which supports the idea that firearms are in the best interest of the people and that a trend in possession of firearms is equal to less crime.
  3. Many believe that these occurrences could have been prevented if the United States government had revisited and imposed additional restrictions on the nations gun bearing population by way of recommending effective ways to combat gun use and introduce innovative approaches towards the severity of gun activity.

In several decades in the future, when this policy has decreased the circulation of high-capacity magazines, there is a strong potential for a decrease in mass murders. Among gun control advocates, a ban on high-capacity magazines is favored because this can reduce the number of shots available in the case of a mass shooting, therefore possible gun deaths.

For example, the Los Angeles City Council passed an ordinance that would forbid city residents from possessing handgun or rifle magazines that exceed 10 rounds of ammunition. This indicates the logic that most gun control advocates follow; more than 10 rounds of ammunition is unnecessary in self-defense.

Simply put, this ban restricts the ability to use certain types of firearms which are perceived to be a particular threat to public safety. The purpose of gun regulation is not just about safe storage and the misuse of firearms, but also about actually controlling what weapons are in circulation. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act became a law in 1994, which was a step forward for gun control advocates.